Talk:The Emperor's New Groove

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Hooks, Ed (2005). "The Emperor's New Groove". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.

Image[edit]

Why is the image duplicated in this article? MK2 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My head hurts..[edit]

I'm only doing the story section and I'm getting a headache from all the unclear antecedents, fragmentary sentences, and miscellaneous typos. I fixed some of them, but it's still a bit jumbled. Unfortunately, I haven't seen this movie recently, so I can't just rewrite the whole thing. I marked my changes as being "minor" because they were cosmetic, for the most part. runey 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Too...[edit]

It is probably unfair to go looking for that one piont where the Walt Disney Animated Canon got...well, shot by a canon...but if there was a piont, The Emperor's New Groove is probably it. Is this a fair marker? Is it even encyclopedic? My head hurts...

Hercules "unsuccessful"[edit]

Is it really fair to label Hercules "unsuccessful" as a movie? It grossed over $252M worldwide (almost $100M more than The Emperor's New Groove). I think either the phrase needs to be qualified or removed.

Disney seems to reguard any animated film of theirs post-Beauty and the Beast that doesn't make over $100 million in America. WIll qualify. --FuriousFreddy 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that this movie was a flop[edit]

  1. REDIRECT [it shows it made tons of money in the box office, and im sure in viewers on disney channel and dvd sales]

A Loss at the box office?[edit]

The budget is listed as $100,000,000, according to the article it made $170,000,000, which translates to a profit of $70,000,000. While not as big a profit as other films, it's certainly not a great failure, or even a loss at all. Why does the article say it lost money in theatres? JBK405 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm wondering the same. That's just Box Office too. It could have brought in another $100,000,000 - $150,000,000 in merchandise and VCR sells. It's in NO way a failure. EVERY article says that only Brother Bear and Lilo & Stitch were successful, but this one was very successful too. ESPECIALLY considering it made more from VCR tapes than theater (It had a very successful VCR run.) --70.130.157.189 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a semi-cult secton?[edit]

Not sure if its appropriate - but could a section be added regarding the internet semi-cult thing about demon llamas? As in

pacha: Aargh! Demon llama!
kuzco: Demon llama!? where!?!?

I'm 'demonllama' on some communities, but on most demonllama is already taken by what looks to be at least 3 different people, mainly in the UK and US. Any objections, or it is too far off the topic... --glasnt<3 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be wierd. 'Nuff said.Julz

WikiProject Kuzco?[edit]

I'm thinking of making WikiProject Kuzco. The problem is I think it should be a fork of WikiProject Disney which needs support to come alive, so people need to show intrest in it on the proposed wikiprojects page to make Project Kuzco true. We have more than 5 articles so we can qualify.

The Setting is Fictional[edit]

People seem to be real insistant about stating in the Story section that the movie is set in the ancient Incan empire. It's not. As the production team says in the DVD commentary, this movie is simply set "long ago in a jungle", and uses an Inca-like background. The note to this effect in the Trivia section covers this point, and is far more apperance.

Kuzco is such a nuthead. He's silly. Kronk like squrrills.

Possible source for the story?[edit]

Isn't the story of an Emperor who becomes reduced to living like a beast rather reminiscent of that of Nebuchadnezzar II in the Book of Daniel? 195.137.79.247 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the similarities as well when I watched it. 12.218.145.112 06:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters list[edit]

It took me forever to find out who the characters were! It's at the very bottom of the page, usually the charactars list is the first or second paragraph! It's right at the bottom of the page and It's irrelevant and typed. Usually it's in a box and such... this page needs some major clean up! I got such a headache from reading the "Kingdom of the Sun" deal. We honestly don't need to know that much about it, and it's far too in distinct.Happykid536 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guards, Guards![edit]

I wonder if it's noteable enough to, well, note, the ultimate fate of the guards that chased the two heros at the end. They were only obeying orders, yet they turned into beasts and fell to a seemingly hideous and seemingly splattering end. Lots42 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Influences section[edit]

The section labeled 'Influences' smells like original research (most of it) to me. Lots42 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendie Malick[edit]

Shouldn't Wendie be in the box at the top where it lists the stars of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.68 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hut[edit]

I thought Kuzco built his vacation hut -on- his friend's hill, not on the next hill over. Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I come with this proposal to merge the following characters into a List of The Emperor's New Groove characters:

Mainly because none of these characters have managed to prove notability outside The Emperor's New Groove and related material. None of the articles have sections about coverage by reliable secondary sources independently discussing the characters or sections showing impact in popular culture. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no opposition within a week and there was no improvement of the articles, then the mergers are being performed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Statement in 'Reception' Needs Deletion (Updated)[edit]

Inaccurate statement: "New Groove and all but two of the five future traditional Disney Feature Animation films--2002's Lilo and Stitch and 2003's Brother Bear--would sustain losses during their theatrical releases".

In reality, of Disney's seven traditionally animated features of the past decade, New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear and The Princess and the Frog are considered successful. The three post-'Disney Renaissance' films that sustained losses were Fantasia 2000 (premiered in 1999), 2002's Treasure Planet and 2004's Home on the Range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.148.81 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. So fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.0.106 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Everbody gets an agonist![edit]

Is there like a guy on the loose who's so proud that he knows the words protagonist, deuteragonist, and antagonist that he now has to insert them into every WP article he can find? -- Imladros (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be, but I don't see anything wrong with it. It's correct terminology I guess. Niudla (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 97.104.252.74, 24 September 2011[edit]

In the fourth paragraph under the "Plot" heading there is a sentence that reads: "Kronk then tries to kill Yzma by cutting a rope to a chandelier, but because Yzma is so skinny, it falls around her instead of on her."

I find the idea that Kronk (who talks to squirrels, and couldn't bring himself to kill Kuzco) tries to "KILL" Yzma is far too big an assumption, and would mark a tremendous change in his character. A word like "incapacitate" or even "trap" is far more accurate and doesn't require as large of a moral leap.

97.104.252.74 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed it to "trap" instead of "kill." --McDoobAU93 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken page link under 'Cast' section[edit]

In the 'Cast' section, there's a link to List of The Emperor's New Groove characters, with #Kronk_Pepikrankenitz appended (to link to that section). However, that section doesn't exist. In the article, it's called 'Kronk', so I request that the section link be changed to #Kronk here. Niudla (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Floating Boat A boat that can float! 11:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor's New Groove is a prequel to Hercules[edit]

This film is a prequel to Hercules, that was released back in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think this is so? Trivialist (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a Sweatbox section?[edit]

It specifically mentions the documentary is about the issues in relation to "Empire Of The Sun", without explaining the link. If the first paragraph of the piece is not read, the inclusion is confusing. Added the reference. 203.13.3.90 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

production[edit]

Here is more info on production with dates: http://archive.li/JJhpE --Evope (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Emperor's New Groove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Until a secondary source says the film says it received positive reviews, this should not be in the article. The review aggregators should speak for themselves without analysis from Wikipedians. In particular, Metacritic's wording was previously discussed here, in which I highlighted issues in using it to state authoritatively that films received "positive reviews". The same issue holds true for box office performance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in The Emperor's New Groove[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Emperor's New Groove's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mojo":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article[edit]

Please add good article to this. It has improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu the penguin and friends (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow process detailed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Emperor%27s_New_Groove&oldid=1209488592"